Audacity and Outrage: Rakesh Kishore CJI Gavai Incident – The Lawyer Who Tried to Hurl a Shoe and Declared, “No Regrets”

The Unprecedented Act: A Challenge to the Sanctity of the Apex Court

The solemnity of the Supreme Court of India—the final bastion of justice—was shattered by an act of unprecedented defiance. In a moment that stunned the courtroom and sent immediate shockwaves through the national legal fraternity, a lawyer attempted to throw a shoe at the Chief Justice of India, Justice B.R. Gavai. The perpetrator, identified as the suspended Advocate Rakesh Kishore, was swiftly restrained, but his act left an indelible mark on the institution, raising uncomfortable questions about judicial accountability, public perception, and the boundaries of dissent.

The incident was not merely an impulsive act of frustrated anger; it was a carefully calculated, albeit desperate, public protest rooted in a deeply held religious and emotional grievance. Following the dismissal of a plea seeking the reconstruction of a damaged temple idol, Rakesh Kishore stood by his actions, displaying zero remorse. His immediate reaction, “No regrets,” became the headline, encapsulating the explosive nature of his protest against the highest court in the land. This event, now synonymous with the phrase BR Gavai Shoe incident, forced the nation to confront the precarious line between judicial freedom and perceived judicial indifference. The attempted assault on Chief Justice BR Gavai marked a dark day for the Indian judiciary, highlighting internal pressures and external radicalization previously thought impossible within the controlled confines of the Supreme Court.

The Moment of Outrage: A Shoe Thrown in the Apex Court

The quiet hum of legal proceedings on that fateful Monday morning—around 11:35 am—was abruptly interrupted. A bench led by Supreme Court Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran had assembled to proceed with the day's roster of cases. Among the lawyers present was Rakesh Kishore, who had recently seen a crucial petition dismissed by the same bench.

In a dramatic move, Kishore quickly removed his sports shoe, preparing to hurl it toward the dais where Justice Gavai was seated. Alert security personnel, whose vigilance often goes unnoticed until moments like these, reacted immediately. Before the shoe could complete its trajectory and strike the Chief Justice of India, security staff had tackled and restrained the advocate, physically dragging him out of the courtroom.

The scene, brief though chaotic, spoke volumes. As he was being removed, Kishore did not go silently. He loudly voiced his motivation, shouting the impassioned slogan, “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge” (We will not tolerate the insult to Sanatan Dharma). It was a clear declaration that his actions were rooted in perceived religious disrespect rather than a purely legal disagreement.

What was perhaps most remarkable was the response of Chief Justice BR Gavai himself. Remaining perfectly calm and composed, the CJI did not allow the shocking disruption to derail the institution's function. He briefly instructed the lawyers present, "Don't get distracted," and immediately proceeded with the court proceedings. This measured response, in the face of a direct physical threat, maintained the dignity of the office and provided a stark contrast to the lawyer’s outburst. While the public focus centered on the unprecedented threat, the composure of Gavai became an equally important detail in the narrative.

Rakesh Kishore: The Man Behind the Shoe and His Justification

In the hours following the incident, Rakesh Kishore offered his defiant clarification to the media, making it clear that his stance was firm and unapologetic. His words were calculated to justify an action that would otherwise be universally condemned as a gross contempt of court and an attack on the rule of law.

"I didn't regret what happened," Kishore asserted, speaking to a news agency. He explained that his motive was a direct reaction to the comments made by the CJI during the dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The plea had been filed seeking directions for the reconstruction and reinstallation of a seven-foot Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple, part of the UNESCO World Heritage Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh.

The Alleged Judicial Mockery

The crux of Kishore's grievance lay in the way the court, specifically the bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, handled the PIL. According to Kishore, the CJI had "mocked" the plea, trivializing a matter of faith and spiritual significance. Kishore recounted the alleged dismissive remarks made by the Supreme Court Chief Justice:

• "Go and ask the deity himself to do something."
• "If you are saying you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation."
• "Go and pray to the idol and tell it to restore its own head."

To Kishore, these comments were not just judicial observations; they were an insult to Sanatan Dharma and a profound disregard for the petitioners' deep spiritual concerns. "When a matter related to our Sanatan Dharma comes up, SC passes such orders. Don't provide relief to the petitioner, but don't mock him either... I was hurt," Kishore stated, clarifying that his rage was born from wounded religious sentiment, not intoxication or personal vendetta. He stressed, "This was my reaction to his action."

It is important to note that the court itself had termed the petition a "publicity interest litigation," maintaining that the issue squarely fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) due to the temple's status as an archaeological find. The court had also observed that the petitioner sought the replacement and consecration of the damaged idol, a request with various complex legal and historical implications. Furthermore, the Chief Justice of India later clarified that he never made the comments attributed to him by social media, suggesting a potential misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the judicial remarks that fueled Kishore's extreme reaction.

The Legal and Ethical Aftermath: Suspension and Condemnation

The fallout from the Rakesh Kishore CJI Gavai incident was swift and decisive. While the Delhi Police ultimately released Kishore after verification, noting that no official complaint had been received, the repercussions from the legal community were immediate and damning.

The most significant professional consequence came from the Bar Council of India (BCI), which promptly suspended Rakesh Kishore’s license. This action effectively barred him from practicing law, reflecting the legal body's commitment to maintaining professional decorum and respecting the judicial office. The incident was viewed by the wider bars and lawyer community as a direct and deplorable attack on the judiciary itself. Legal associations strongly condemned the act, calling for firm action against the advocate and emphasizing the need to uphold the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court.

This event forced legal observers to reflect on the nature of advocacy. While lawyers are tasked with being fierce defenders of their clients' rights and even, at times, acting as critics of the system, this attempted physical assault crossed a fundamental boundary. It moved the act of judicial critique from the realm of verbal submission and legal challenge to one of violence, undermining the very principles of civilized lawyering. The incident served as a potent, if negative, reminder of the delicate balance required in a functional democracy, where the right to dissent must coexist with respect for the institutions designed to protect those rights.

A Broader Debate: Security, Dissent, and the Throne of Justice

The attempted shoe-hurl instantly triggered a national discussion far beyond the courtroom's walls. The spectacle of the BR Gavai Shoe incident exposed critical vulnerabilities in the security apparatus surrounding the Supreme Court Chief Justice and the highest judicial authority. If an advocate, who undergoes security checks, can bring an object into the courtroom with the intent of violence, what does this imply for the security of other judges and judicial complexes across the country? Security protocols were scrutinized intensely, with calls for immediate upgrades to safeguard judicial personnel.

More importantly, the incident illuminated the growing chasm between judicial pronouncements and fervent public or religious sentiment. Kishore's cry of Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge highlights a trend where legal rulings, particularly those touching on cultural, religious, or historical matters, are increasingly subjected to passionate, sometimes aggressive, non-legal critique.

The Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court often sit at the intersection of legal principle and deeply held popular belief. While the court's job is to interpret law and safeguard the Constitution, regardless of political or religious popularity, moments like these underscore the emotional resonance of their decisions. The Supreme Court's classification of the Khajuraho temple plea as an ASI-related issue versus the petitioner’s perception of it as a matter of fundamental religious observance illustrates this profound conflict.

The act of violence, however misguided, also speaks to a frustration within certain sections of the legal fraternity and the public—a feeling that the system is unresponsive or even contemptuous of their concerns. Though his method was unacceptable, Rakesh Kishore managed to transform a dismissed PIL into a national news story, forcing the Chief Justice BR Gavai and the entire judicial system into the spotlight to defend not just their ruling, but their very decorum and impartiality.

This is the challenging environment faced by modern judicial leaders like Gavai. They must deliver justice under intense public scrutiny, navigating the complexities of law, politics, and faith, all while ensuring that the dignity and authority of the institution remain intact. The defiance shown by Kishore, though condemned, will undoubtedly be cataloged as a chilling reminder of the volatility that can permeate the highest echelons of Indian governance. The BR Gavai Shoe incident serves as a powerful, uncomfortable symbol of radicalized frustration directed squarely at the throne of justice.

In summary, the actions of Rakesh Kishore were an inexcusable breach of professional conduct and judicial security. While his personal grievances may have stemmed from profound conviction, the attempted assault on the Supreme Court Chief Justice represented an attack on the rule of law. Kishore has "no regrets," but the judicial system must now reflect on how to manage the intense pressures of a polarized society while preserving its integrity and independence, ensuring that such a dramatic confrontation with the Chief Justice of India never occurs again.